9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were abroad. (d) Such other and further reliefs to give effect to the prayer being made hereinabove and or such other and further reliefs deemed to be just and necessary by this Honourable Court. 2. The case of the petitioners in this application is that Company Law Board passed an interim order on 8.8.2006 for stay on the fixed assets of the company and for authentication of the records by the Bench Officer of the Company Law Board. When the Bench Officer went to authenticate the statutory record of the company on 10.8.2006, the respondents refused to provide inspection as per order dated 8.8.2006. First petitioner says Company Law Board passed an order on 31.1.2007 against the respondents not to file any documents subsequent to the reply filed by respondents on 31.1.2007. First petitioner also filed a Contempt Application before the Honourable High Court, wherein an order was passed on 24.2.2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to urge before CLB that the respondents took time of five months to forge and fabricate certain documents. The petitioner says the answering Respondents, without leave of this Bench to file additional documents, filed numerous documents with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Return Reply by Sanjay Nand Gupta to the Main Petition 78,82 He also sought for summoning the original statutory records of R-l Company for forensic examination. 3. By way of reply, R-5 stated that this application is frivolous and filed with the ulterior motive to delay the final hearing of the petition on merits. The petitioner says the minutes of Board meeting of Directors were authenticated by the Bench Officer on 31.1.2007, pursuant to order dated 11.1.2007. The documents mentioned as item 8 9 of the table above been filed by the respondents along with the counter Affidavit dated 13.10.2006 and Sur-Rejoinder dated 12.3.2007. He says it is pertinent to mention the answering respondents filed CA No. 372/2010 on 7.7.2010 for clarification of order dated 8.8.2006 to permit 5th Respondent to lease out the fixed assets of the company M/s Cameo Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. i.e. 46, World Trade Centre, Coffee Parade, Mumbai and C-16, MIDC TTC Industrial Estate, Mumbai. The said application was disposed of by this Bench stating this CP will be heard on day-to-day basis from 25.7.2011 to 29.7.2011 at 10.30 a.m. each day. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent objection for passing any order over this issue, the respondent, Sanjay Gupta and Usha Jaykar were constrained to file an application No. 15/2007 dated 1.12.2006 tendering their unconditional apologies and sought leave to purge their contempt by complying with orders dated 8.8.2006. On CAs 15/2007 and 16/2007, an order was passed for production of company records before Company Law Board on 31.1.2007 at 10.30 a.m for authentication by the Bench Officer of Delhi. In pursuance of the same, the records were authenticated on 31.1.2007. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner side went ahead with contempt petition before the Honourable High Court wherein the Honourable High Court passed an order on 24.2.2009 for having the answering respondent already tendered unconditional apology and complied with the order dated 18.8.2006, the contempt petition was disposed of stating that the respondents already complied with the order dated 8.8.2006. He says that the answering respondents were barred from filing any new documents after filing reply in this case. 6. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is this Bench passed an order not to file any new documents, which are inadmissible in nature. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly denied Bench Officer to have access with the records and to have inspection as per order dated 8.8.2006. 3. that the respondents voluntarily came forward for compliance of order dated 8.8.2006 as soon as they appeared in this matter. They even filed application for permission to production of the company records before Company Law board. Finally, CLB allowed for production of documents, in pursuance thereof, R-l Company produced documents on 31.1.2007. Therefore, these minutes which now they are challenging as not contemporaneous records, even assuming these documents not in the know of the petitioners, they have come to their notice by in 2007 itself when the respondents filed these documents along with their sur-rejoinder. 4. that the petitioner filed rejoinder in this case on 22.1.2007. Thereafter, within 2 months the respondents filed Sur-Rejoinder on 12.3.2007 enclosing the documents, which the petitioner No. 1 sought for forensic examination after five years. These petitioners did not file any application for forensic examination in 2007 though they knew their existence in the year 2007 itself. 5. that the minutes which the petitioner saying as not contemporaneous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Income Tax is to be paid by any person from year to year based on returns filed by him. By these statements, he cannot blindly make anybody believe that the signatures on wealth and Income Tax Returns were forged. Had they been forged by answering respondents, why he has kept quite all along without taking any action over this issue from the year 1990 till this date. 11. that most of the signatures on the documents of Sabina Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. were made issue in this case saying the respondents, wherein the respondents were not in the management, forged the signatures on those documents. The persons who are in the management will file statutory filings, not others. Therefore, it is not right to attribute that the answering respondents forged first petitioner signatures on the documents of Sabina Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. 12. that I must say this petitioner himself stated in the company petition that he was not aware of any proceedings in R-l company for the last 25 years. The persons, who remained in slumber for more than 25 years, could not ask for any relief in a company petition filed u/s 397 398 of the Companies Act. If any interlocutory proceedings in main case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ud committed by the adverse party. Nobody is supposed to initiate roving and fishing enquiry just by throwing an allegation of forgery and fraud against adverse party. As far as allotment is concerned, it has been done over a period from the year 1985 until 2004. This is not something secretly done, whenever any increase or allotment is made, it will come to the notice of the Board thereafter, it will be made known at the time of AGM and go to public notice by filings before RoC from time to time. The respondents herein filed statutory filings from time to time as per Companies Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that these answering respondents have not filed statutory documents timely, therefore, it will be presumed that it is very much in the notice of the petitioners as and when allotments are made to the respondents. In case the petitioner wants to rebut that presumption to show the petitioner believes these disputed documents are not genuine, he has to reason on what basis he arrived to that belief, for which also there shall be timely action. 15. that it is the case of the respondents that R-l Company is loss-making company and these answering respondents have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC) to say that the delay in filing this application is not barred by limitation nor even delay and laches. 21. In the citation supra, the applicant approached the court immediately after it has come to their notice, though incident happened sometime back, here it is otherwise, the documents the petitioners disputing filed in this very case in the year 2007, the petitioners once even argued main case without raising this issue, moreover these are not the documents all of sudden come up from the custody of the answering respondents, infact documents filed before various statutory authorities in the span of 30 years, therefore the ratio supra is not applicable in the present case. 22. The answering respondents relied upon legal proposition to say that whenever complicated questions arose on factual aspects then such cases shall be relegated to civil court in as much as this Tribunal normally goes by the affidavits filed by either side, for having this bench decided this application on the reasons above mentioned, this aspect has not been dealt with. 23. The counsel appearing on behalf of R-9 and 10 supported the submissions of the petitioners saying the proceedings under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
